Khaberni - The UAE Federal Supreme Court upheld a woman's appeal against an appellate ruling that convicted her of a domestic violence crime, noting she told her husband, "I will not have mercy on you, by Allah," in a message sent through WhatsApp.
The court confirmed that the case files lacked any evidence that could be relied on in convicting her, deciding to overturn the judgment against her and ruling her not guilty of the charges attributed to her.
The court explained in its ruling reasons that the phrase directed by the wife to her husband does not inherently constitute a punishable threat, clarifying that "domestic violence is meant every act, omission, statement, or threat thereof, or neglect or economic or sexual exploitation committed by one or several family members or contributed in against another family member beyond what their guardianship or authority or responsibility entails, resulting or aiming to inflict physical, psychological, sexual, or economic harm or damage," according to Article 4 of the Decree-Law No. 13 of 2024 concerning domestic violence.
In detail, the public prosecution charged a woman with a domestic violence crime for threatening the victim (her husband) through a message sent via WhatsApp stating "I will not have mercy on you, by Allah," and requested her punishment under the provisions of the Federal Decree-Law No. 13 of 2024 on protection from domestic violence.
The court of first instance initially convicted her and mandated that she memorize what she could from the Holy Quran within a month from the date, considering it a form of community service for the domestic violence charge where she threatened her husband via a WhatsApp message attributed to her, and requiring her to attend a rehabilitation course against violence in specialized centers, and pay the criminal case fees.
The defendant did not accept this judgment, so she appealed, and the appellate court dismissed it, leading her to challenge this decision at the Supreme Court, while the public prosecution submitted a memorandum concluding a recommendation to reject the appeal.
Her defense in the appeal stated that the judgment convicted her despite the absence of the elements of the crime attributed to her, particularly the criminal intent, which defects the judgment and necessitates its annulment.
The Federal Supreme Court, supporting her appeal, stated that it is settled – in the jurisprudence of this court – that a judgment must inherently contain elements that reassure an observer of the court's understanding of the case's elements. The legislator required in Article 217 of the Criminal Procedure Law that each conviction include the reasons upon which it is based, otherwise, it is void. The intent of reasoned judgments is to outline the basis and arguments it is built on, either factually or legally, and it must do so in a detailed, clear statement that enables understanding the justifications for the decision. However, general statements or abstract summaries do not fulfill the legislator’s requirement for reasoning judgments, nor do they enable the Supreme Court to monitor the correct application of law to the established facts in the judgment.
It further noted that the supported appellate judgment merely used general terms in proving the charge against the appellant, which did not reveal the true intent concerning the factual circumstances of the case, and did not achieve the clarity and explanation intended by the legislator for such reasoning, thereby invalidating the material element of the crime attributed to the appellant. Furthermore, the files did not support the existence of the criminal intent required, and the fact that the appellant (the wife) admitted to the utterance does not affect this, as long as it doesn't constitute the threat that underlies the crime, which means the lawsuit lacked any evidence that could substantiate the charges against the appellant, hence the appellate court's view contrary to this led to a corrupt judgment due to flawed reasoning and inadequacy in basis, thus invalidating it.
